Saturday, April 30, 2016

Life Begins With a Dramatic Burst of Light

The Light That Was Dark

Researchers studying the fertilization of human eggs are barred by federal law from using actual sperm. Federal law rightly imposes particularly strong restrictions on experiments on humans. Nonetheless, using sperm enzymes researchers have confirmed that at the moment of fertilization the human egg, as with other species, emits a dramatic burst of light. As one newspaper put it, “Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg.” And:

Human life begins in bright flash of light as a sperm meets an egg, scientists have shown for the first time, after capturing the astonishing “fireworks” on film.

One of the researchers described the burst of light as “breathtaking.”

All of this reminds us of something we already knew. In spite of evolutionist’s attempts to hide the science, the light shines through. Even federal law testifies to the fact—the scientific fact—that life begins, not at birth, not at some arbitrarily and conveniently selected point in development, but at conception. That is not a political argument or a religious belief. It simply is the science.

80 comments:

  1. "All of this reminds us of something we already knew. In spite of evolutionist’s attempts to hide the science, the light shines through."

    And when I pet my cat, I generate sparks. When I bite on a wintergreen lifesaver, flashes of light appear. When you disturb the surface of the ocean at night, light is produced.

    I fail to see the point of this OP. Many every day chemical and physical reactions result in the production of light.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fail to see the point of this OP. ... when I pet my cat, I generate sparks.

      So why isn't that restricted by federal law? Why did the newspaper report that "Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins"?

      Delete
    2. William Spearshake

      I fail to see the point of this OP. Many every day chemical and physical reactions result in the production of light.


      Apparently you're suppose to go "ZOMG A FLASH OF LIGHT therefore JESUS!!, or some such nonsense. The actual paper is here.

      The zinc spark is an inorganic signature of human egg activation

      Abstract: Egg activation refers to events required for transition of a gamete into an embryo, including establishment of the polyspermy block, completion of meiosis, entry into mitosis, selective recruitment and degradation of maternal mRNA, and pronuclear development. Here we show that zinc fluxes accompany human egg activation. We monitored calcium and zinc dynamics in individual human eggs using selective fluorophores following activation with calcium-ionomycin, ionomycin, or hPLCζ cRNA microinjection. These egg activation methods, as expected, induced rises in intracellular calcium levels and also triggered the coordinated release of zinc into the extracellular space in a prominent “zinc spark.” The ability of the gamete to mount a zinc spark response was meiotic-stage dependent. Moreover, chelation of intracellular zinc alone was sufficient to induce cell cycle resumption and transition of a meiotic cell into a mitotic one. Together, these results demonstrate critical functions for zinc dynamics and establish the zinc spark as an extracellular marker of early human development.

      There's nothing in the paper about the chemical flash being the "start of life", only a chemical result of fertilization. The "beginning of life" stuff was merely some hyperbole by the The Telegraph science writer. The flash also can't be the human soul since the same flash is seen in several other mammal species such as mice, pigs, and various non-human primates.

      Seems to be more desperation by the Creationists. They just know their Creator God is hiding in the scientific data somewhere.

      Delete
    3. So why isn't that restricted by federal law?

      Dafuq? You're asking why petting your cat and generating a static discharge isn't against Federal law??

      Delete
    4. Christophobic, closet homosexual, atheist pretending to be interested in science, aka ghostrider, aka Timothy Horton:

      Dafuq? You're asking why petting your cat and generating a static discharge isn't against Federal law??

      Darwinists are all stupid but Horton has got to be the most cretinous and clueless Darwinists on the planet. Or very close.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    5. Seems to be more desperation by the Creationists.

      LoL! Yours can't explain sexual reproduction, troll. Yours can't explain living organisms, asexual reproduction, sexual reproduction, meiosis, and many more scientific findings. It's as if your position is only for gullible ignoramuses like you.

      Delete
    6. Cornelius, Joe and Louis, you are not helping Creationists when you resort to name calling just like the evolutionists do. While I absolutely agree with the six-day creation as described in the Bible, hence disagree with evolution entirely, I am still compelled to love others no matter how much I might disagree with them. "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you"

      Delete
    7. Whatever- I choose to do unto others as they do to me.

      Delete
    8. Many parents, and I know of some that don't have any sort of rules and hence punishment, are willing to punish their children (ie: inflict some sort of pain) to let them know ahead of time what will become of them should they continue to do whatever. Is this love or hate?

      Delete
  2. William,

    "Many every day chemical and physical reactions result in the production of light."

    When you pet your cat do the sparks result in kittens?:)

    As the answer is obviously, no, I think you will readily admit we're not talking about sparks of equal essence here. In other words, we are comparing apples with road apples.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, we are talking apples and apples. There are hundreds of other chemical reactions that occur at the time of fertilization. Why isn't Cornelius harping on those? Why is he jumping on one that produced a light flash? Light creating chemical reactions are found all through nature. Why is this one special? And, given that it occurs in the fallopian tube, where it can't be seen by anybody or anything, what would be the purpose?

      Delete
    2. Leave to a Kevin to totally miss the point of the OP. Life begins at conception, Kevin. That is the point.

      Grow up, already

      Delete
    3. Hi Joe. What is the wavelength and frequency of the flash of light that marks the beginning of life?

      Delete
    4. Hi Kevin, why do you always revert to being an ass?

      Delete
  3. A few notes

    "Distant Intercellular Interactions in a System of Two Tissue Cultures,"
    Psychoenergetic Systems, Vol. 1, No. 3, March 1976, pp 141-142.
    Excerpt: Specifically, every cell emits mitogenetic radiation in the ultraviolet twice: when it is born and when it dies. The UV photon emitted at death contains the exact virtual state pattern of the condition of the cell at death.
    http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/death%20transmission.htm

    Cellular Communication through Light
    Excerpt: Information transfer is a life principle. On a cellular level we generally assume that molecules are carriers of information, yet there is evidence for non-molecular information transfer due to endogenous coherent light. This light is ultra-weak, is emitted by many organisms, including humans and is conventionally described as biophoton emission.
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005086

    Bioactive peptide design using the Resonant Recognition Model - 2007
    Excerpt: There is evidence that proteins and DNA have certain conducting properties [12]. If so, then charges would be moving through the backbone of the macromolecule and passing through different energy stages caused by the different side groups of various amino acids or nucleotides. This process provides sufficient conditions for the emission of electromagnetic waves.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997124/

    The mechanism and properties of bio-photon emission and absorption in protein molecules in living systems - May 2012
    Excerpt: From the energy spectra, it was determined that the protein molecules could both radiate and absorb bio-photons with wavelengths of less than 3 μm and 5–7 μm, consistent with the energy level transitions of the excitons.,,,
    http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/japiau/v111/i9/p093519_s1?isAuthorized=no

    Proteins Conduct Electricity - November 25, 2012
    Excerpt: "The team showed that the protein could carry large currents, equivalent to a human hair carrying one amp. The team also discovered that current flow could be regulated in much the same way as transistors, the tiny devices driving computers and smartphones, work but on a smaller scale: the proteins are only a quarter of the size of current silicon based transistors."
    The finding represents a leap forward in measurement at the nano scale. “Prior to this work, measurement of millions, if not billions of proteins was only possible, so losing crucial details of how an individual molecule functions.” The team used scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) to read the electronics of a single molecule of cytochrome b562, a protein just 5 nanometers (billions of a meter) long.
    http://crev.info/2012/11/proteins-conduct-electricity/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Puzzling Role Of Biophotons In The Brain - Dec. 17, 2010
      Excerpt: In recent years, a growing body of evidence shows that photons play an important role in the basic functioning of cells. Most of this evidence comes from turning the lights off and counting the number of photons that cells produce. It turns out, much to many people’s surprise, that many cells, perhaps even most, emit light as they work.
      In fact, it looks very much as if many cells use light to communicate. There’s certainly evidence that bacteria, plants and even kidney cells communicate in this way. Various groups have even shown that rats brains are literally alight thanks to the photons produced by neurons as they work.,,,
      ,,, earlier this year, one group showed that spinal neurons in rats can actually conduct light.
      ,, Rahnama and co point out that neurons contain many light sensitive molecules, such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores and aromatic amino acids. In particular, mitochondria, the machines inside cells which produce energy, contain several prominent chromophores.
      The presence of light sensitive molecules makes it hard to imagine how they might not be not influenced by biophotons.,,,
      They go on to suggest that the light channelled by microtubules can help to co-ordinate activities in different parts of the brain. It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained. Electrical signals travel too slowly to do this job, so something else must be at work.,,,
      (So) It’s a big jump to assume that photons do this job.
      http://www.technologyreview.com/view/422069/the-puzzling-role-of-biophotons-in-the-brain/

      As to “It’s certainly true that electrical activity in the brain is synchronised over distances that cannot be easily explained”, the following video and paper comments on ‘zero time lag’ in synchronous brain activity:

      Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death (Conserved Quantum Information) - Stuart Hameroff – video (1:58 minute mark)
      https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=117

      ,,, zero time lag neuronal synchrony despite long conduction delays - 2008
      Excerpt: Multielectrode recordings have revealed zero time lag synchronization among remote cerebral cortical areas. However, the axonal conduction delays among such distant regions can amount to several tens of milliseconds. It is still unclear which mechanism is giving rise to isochronous discharge of widely distributed neurons, despite such latencies,,,
      Remarkably, synchrony of neuronal activity is not limited to short-range interactions within a cortical patch. Interareal synchronization across cortical regions including interhemispheric areas has been observed in several tasks (7, 9, 11–14).,,,
      Beyond its functional relevance, the zero time lag synchrony among such distant neuronal ensembles must be established by mechanisms that are able to compensate for the delays involved in the neuronal communication. Latencies in conducting nerve impulses down axonal processes can amount to delays of several tens of milliseconds between the generation of a spike in a presynaptic cell and the elicitation of a postsynaptic potential (16). The question is how, despite such temporal delays, the reciprocal interactions between two brain regions can lead to the associated neural populations to fire in unison (i.e. zero time lag).,,,
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2575223/

      Delete
    2. Further notes:

      Symphony of Life, Revealed: New Imaging Technique Captures Vibrations of Proteins, Tiny Motions Critical to Human Life - Jan. 16, 2014
      Excerpt: To observe the protein vibrations, Markelz' team relied on an interesting characteristic of proteins: The fact that they vibrate at the same frequency as the light they absorb.
      This is analogous to the way wine glasses tremble and shatter when a singer hits exactly the right note. Markelz explained: Wine glasses vibrate because they are absorbing the energy of sound waves, and the shape of a glass determines what pitches of sound it can absorb. Similarly, proteins with different structures will absorb and vibrate in response to light of different frequencies.
      So, to study vibrations in lysozyme, Markelz and her colleagues exposed a sample to light of different frequencies and polarizations, and measured the types of light the protein absorbed.
      This technique, , allowed the team to identify which sections of the protein vibrated under normal biological conditions. The researchers were also able to see that the vibrations endured over time, challenging existing assumptions.
      "If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave," Markelz said. "Many scientists have previously thought a protein is more like a wet sponge than a bell: If you tap on a wet sponge, you don't get any sustained sound."
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116084838.htm

      Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules
      Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
      That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
      The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
      “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
      https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

      Delete
    3. Humans Glow in (Emit) Visible Light - July 2009
      Excerpt: Past research has shown that the body emits visible light, 1,000 times less intense than the levels to which our naked eyes are sensitive. In fact, virtually all living creatures emit very weak light,
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32090918/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/humans-glow-visible-light/

      Strange! Humans Glow in Visible Light - Charles Q. Choi - July 22, 2009
      Schematic illustration of experimental setup that found the human body, especially the face, emits visible light in small quantities that vary during the day. B is one of the test subjects. The other images show the weak emissions of visible light during totally dark conditions. The chart corresponds to the images and shows how the emissions varied during the day. The last image (I) is an infrared image of the subject showing heat emissions.
      http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/006/481/original/090722-body-glow-02.jpg?1296086873

      Evidence of quantum nature of life in human photon emission - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=liIDKLZVRdM#t=1351s

      Photocount distribution of photons emitted from three sites of a human body - 2006
      Excerpt: Signals from three representative sites of low, intermediate and high intensities are selected for further analysis. Fluctuations in these signals are measured by the probabilities of detecting different numbers of photons in a bin. The probabilities have non-classical features and are well described by the signal in a quantum squeezed state of photons. Measurements with bins of three sizes yield same values of three parameters of the squeezed state.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520060

      And all of this provides a viable mechanism for how the image formed on the Shroud

      Scientific hypotheses on the origin of the body image of the Shroud - 2010
      Excerpt: for example, if we consider the density of radiation that we used to color a single square centimeter of linen, to reproduce the entire image of the Shroud with a single flash of light would require fourteen thousand lasers firing simultaneously each on a different area of linen. In other words, it would take a laser light source the size of an entire building.
      http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_22597_l3.htm

      The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values - Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio - 2008
      Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the 'quantum' is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
      http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271

      Delete
    4. Damn, who left the door open and let cut-and-pasta BA77 in?

      Delete
    5. Damn, who left the door open and let cut-and-pasta BA77 in?

      Spillage. One site like UD just wasn't big enough to hold the metric tons of verbal detritus BA77 produces every day. :)

      Delete
    6. How many times has the "preponderance of evidence" been used to validate claims of evolution? (remember that from the OP? heard it dozens of times) Seems there is a preponderance of evidence linking light with life.

      Life begins at conception, that was the point. Abortion ends a life, that's the implication. No mention of souls or religion, just the science of when life begins.

      Delete
    7. ohandy1

      Life begins at conception, that was the point.


      The paper doesn't say anything of the sort. It merely says there are a series of chemical reaction that occur shortly after fertilization, one of which produces a small amount of visible light. It's not special to humans because the same effect is seen in a number of other mammal species. That's the science. The rest is just Creationist wishful thinking.

      Delete
    8. ghostrider. If the paper had said any such thing it wouldn't have been published. That doesn't change the implications. The point was made in the OP.

      BA77 provided support for that conclusion the same way evolution is supported, a "mountain of evidence". The only point I made btw.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. ohandy1

      If the paper had said any such thing it wouldn't have been published.


      LOL! Here we go again. The Evil Atheist Conspiracy must be suppressing scientific results!

      That doesn't change the implications. The point was made in the OP.

      The OP made an unsupported assertion that had nothing to do with the actual results of the paper.

      BA77 provided support for that conclusion the same way evolution is supported, a "mountain of evidence".

      Here's a hint. Virtually nobody reads BA77's blithering walls-o-text. He didn't earn the nickname "the scroll wheel killer" for nothing. :)

      Delete
    11. Ghostrider

      Nobody reads that mountain of evidence for evolution either. It's the volume that is counted as evidence, not the quality.

      And should you actually read any of that mountain of evidence for evolution you get conclusions that rely on a priori acceptance of evolution.
      But you know that.

      Delete
    12. ohandy1

      Nobody reads that mountain of evidence for evolution either. It's the volume that is counted as evidence, not the quality


      LOL! Typical Creationist. Just because he's willfully ignorant and hasn't read any of the scientific literature that means no one else has read it either. Actually I read a lot in my undergrad and grad school days. I've also read hundred of technical papers in my 30+ year career, many for work but some just to increase my personal knowledge. Still with all that I've barely scratched the surface of what's out here.

      And should you actually read any of that mountain of evidence for evolution you get conclusions that rely on a priori acceptance of evolution.

      That evolution over deep time has occurred is a well established scientific fact. Why shouldn't it be accepted by new papers?

      Delete
    13. Stop with the equivocation already. ID is not anti-evolution. So perhaps all of those 99% also accept ID.

      Look if you have read so many papers on evolution then it is strange that you cannot present a testable hypothesis for natural selection and/ or drift producing ATP synthase. You can't even tell us how to test such a claim.

      So either you are one of the most gullible chumps ever or you're just a moron.

      Delete
    14. Evotard Horton:

      That evolution over deep time has occurred is a well established scientific fact. Why shouldn't it be accepted by new papers?

      Spoken like a true dirt worshipper and professional deceiver. And a Christophobic closet homosexual to boot. Nobody is arguing against evolution, you cretinous moron. The argument is over how it happened.

      Go pack sand up your asteroid and see if anybody cares, you brain-dead jackass.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    15. Poor YEC Joke Gallien. If anyone needs shit from him all they have to do is squeeze his head. :D

      Delete
    16. LoL! If anyone wants my shit they just need to look in Timmy's mouth

      Delete
    17. Lenski, et al., have shown that evolution is very limited in what it can do. Why is it tat evos always ignore that and act as if Lenski helps their cause?

      Delete
    18. Eewww Joe, that's gross.

      Delete
    19. ghostrider

      You said you don't read BA77's posts yet you claim to read papers. Which is it?

      Perhaps hyperbole?

      Just as you speak for every reader not reading what you don't agree with I suggest that the vast majority of evolutionists don't actually read the research. So goes the "mountains of evidence" argument. Each encounter with one such as this merely quotes a number of results in a google search and claims that as evidence for accuracy.

      An untruth told a million times doesn't become true by virtue of its proclivity for repetition.

      Evolution over deep time cannot be sufficiently explained to come anywhere near fact. Not without the predisposition that evolution is true. There is nothing you can say to change this fact no matter how many times it's tried.

      Call me names, impugn my intelligence or education, but in the end that's all you have. You cannot show me wrong, only resort to ad hominem attacks or appeal to authority (or some other rhetorical fallacy stuff). It would be fun if you actually tried. This blog is getting redundant with comments becoming mostly about name calling rather than the finer points of the data. I was in the Army, I already know how to cuss and insult.

      Delete
    20. Joe: "LoL! If anyone wants my *#^&..."

      Cornelius: for all your talk about focusing on the science, your unwillingness to properly moderate your blog has resulted in this forum becoming nothing but a cesspool where people spew insults at each other. That does nothing to progress science.

      As a place to learn about ID or advanced ID ideas, this blog is a complete failure.

      Delete
    21. ohandy1

      Just as you speak for every reader not reading what you don't agree with I suggest that the vast majority of evolutionists don't actually read the research.


      As usual you'd be wrong. What happens is as an undergrad you get a broad brush understanding of the major topics in evolutionary theory. As a grad student you specialize in one much more narrow area. There's certainly no one person who is an expert on every detail of every topic in evolutionary theory but there are well read experts available for all of the topics. Just because you are ignorant doesn't make everyone else ignorant too.

      Evolution over deep time cannot be sufficiently explained to come anywhere near fact.

      To the satisfaction of the professional scientific community it is, in spades. All your ignorance-based whining won't change that.

      This blog is getting redundant with comments becoming mostly about name calling rather than the finer points of the data. I was in the Army, I already know how to cuss and insult.

      Talk to Cornelius. He's the one who allows obscenity spewing cretins like Louis and Joe G run amok. Every time Nic and I try to have a civil conversation those two chowderheads have to jump in with their screaming and insults.

      Delete
    22. To the satisfaction of the professional scientific community it is, in spades. All your ignorance-based whining won't change that.

      This is what I'm talking about. Appeal to authority. You know full well that popularity doesn't equal truth, and evolution is popular in science today. How 'bout getting particular?

      I don't get queasy with foul language, but when there's no redeeming quality it deserves to be ignored. Thing is, you like to call me IDiot but won't get into the weeds. For all the flaws in the comments, Cornelius makes some very good arguments in his articles. Arguments which I've yet to see you refute. Disagree - yes. Disparage? yes. But not once have you presented an argument, to my recollection (and I've by no means read every comment), that actually shows his premises wrong. Do you have a blog that extensively refutes Cornelius? It would be interesting to get more than a comment to the effect of "yer stupid and your idea is ridiculous." or "You read that wrong, yer stupid". Which is how most of your comments come off.

      This blog is about science, not God. I'm a layman in the science so I enjoy a good exchange of ideas.

      I'm not a layman in logic, things have to make sense which is why I don't buy your "it's not a priori" argument, or your "99.9% say so so it must be true" argument. Popularity has never been a true indicator of truth.

      So if you call me "willfully ignorant" or "IDiot" or my favorite... "as usual you're wrong" without ever validating it , doesn't that make you a chowderhead also?(and the typical evolutionist online isn't a phd or even at graduate level, they're hapless students who have never been introduced to the weaknesses of ToE)

      Delete
    23. ohandy1

      This is what I'm talking about. Appeal to authority.


      Fail again. I didn't say evolution was a fact because virtually all of scientists accept is. Virtually all scientists accept it as fact because of the strength of its positive supporting evidence.

      For all the flaws in the comments, Cornelius makes some very good arguments in his articles.

      Well no, he doesn't. He twists and cherry picks data for his anti-evolution religious propaganda. That's the sole purpose of this blog. It's not about science, never has been. It's 100% Creationist propaganda.

      I'm not a layman in logic, things have to make sense which is why I don't buy your "it's not a priori" argument, or your "99.9% say so so it must be true" argument.

      Since I never made those arguments what you think of them is irrelevant.

      So if you call me "willfully ignorant" or "IDiot" or my favorite... "as usual you're wrong" without ever validating it

      But you are willfully ignorant. I've posted dozens of science papers on this board and you're never read a single one. All you're capable of is parroting back the usual Creationist PRATT arguments. And whining. You're pretty good at that.

      Delete
    24. Virtually all scientists accept it as fact because of the strength of its positive supporting evidence.

      Mere evolution isn't being debated. Your cowardly equivocation and willful ignorance of the debate, while amusing, just exposes your desperation.

      As for your scientific papers- not one supports unguided evolution.

      Delete
    25. CaroleTim- Thank you for proving that you are an ass.

      Delete
    26. Brain-dead evotard:

      Poor YEC Joke Gallien. If anyone needs shit from him all they have to do is squeeze his head. :D

      Joe:

      LoL! If anyone wants my shit they just need to look in Timmy's mouth.

      You mean, in addition to the shit that's between the dirt worshipper's ears?

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha

      Delete
    27. Ohandy: "You said you don't read BA77's posts yet you claim to read papers. Which is it?"

      Wait!!! You actually read Copy-and-pasta's posts? The count is up to one. He will be ecstatic.

      Delete
    28. CaroleTim: "Cornelius: for all your talk about focusing on the science, your unwillingness to properly moderate your blog has resulted in this forum becoming nothing but a cesspool where people spew insults at each other."

      You just noticed?

      This has been brought to Cornelius's attention on numerous occasions. But, as long as you are an ID supporter, you can say anything you want with impunity. But, if you oppose ID, your comments disappear if you attempt anything nearly as abusive.

      Cornelius, of course, could claim that I am lying. Unfortunately, the evidence is there for everybody to see (the downside of sucking as a moderator).

      Delete
    29. And more BS lies from Kevin.

      Look if you chumps didn't abuse, equivocate and try to bluff your way through these discussions all would be fine.

      Delete
    30. I've looked at over a dozen comments through at least twelve blog posts, and what William Speakshake claims is not true. Comments don't disappear without a record of "This comment has been removed by a blog administrator."

      The blog master has indeed banished, warned, or removed comments from people that are overly aggressive regardless of what "side" they are on. But if the blog master doesn't let things play out as much as possible, the nature of the discourse will reflect his personality and not those of the commenters. And if he did that, I wouldn't get the fun of having good source material for my project (thanks for contributing).

      I recommend taking my word for it unless you really want to read thousands of comments to find the few times administrative action was taken - and it has - and there's record of it. It is easy to claim comments disappear into thin air when so few comments are removed, so as to see they are indeed replaced with "This comment has been removed by a blog administrator."

      Complaints indeed come down to this: it's more fun to bite than to be bitten.

      Delete
  4. Darwinists are pitiful, unenlightenend little creatures deserving of nothing but contempt and scorn. One of my favorite things to do in life is to heap such contempt and scorn on them as they squirm under the light of truth. I am in the business of making Darwinists squirm...and business is very good!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! I like to visualize these silly rants of yours spoken in an Elmer Fudd voice. :)

      "I'm hunting wascally ewolution wesearchers! Be wery wery quiet!"

      :D :D :D

      Delete
  5. More stupid Darwinist drivel. See link below. These primates are crazy as hell...and getting crazier by the day.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/05/cosmic_archaeol102813.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "These pwimates are cwazy as hell...and getting cwazier by the day."

      You tell 'em Elmer Fudd! :D

      Delete
  6. More Darwinist propaganda is exposed at the below link.

    Darwinists worship a doomed theory AND THEY KNOW IT. Their inner-circle fighting is becoming more and more public (and entertaining!). It is great to be alive during the collapse of that deranged philosophy. It never had a chance. Good riddance.

    http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2016/04/writer-producer-fred-foote-sets-the-record-straight-with-alleged/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More Darwinist pwopaganda is weduced to wubble! Good widdence!

      - Elmer the Creationist. :D

      Delete
    2. Well Elmer knows more than Timmy the evoTARD.

      Delete
  7. Just my take:

    I thought this comment section was fascinating once. There was contention sure, but it was often over the finer points of research and conclusions. It's become claims of IDiots and counterclaims of evoTARDs.

    Forgive me but aren't you (collectively) dropping to a YouTube class of comments?

    Perhaps just an example of de-evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Forgive me but aren't you (collectively) dropping to a YouTube class of comments?"

      Absolutely. Cornelius has been warned about this for a few months but it has fallen on deaf ears. I suspect that this is because the people complaining about the behaviour of the commenters have been us Evo-tards.

      I guess you have to sleep in the bed that you have made.

      Delete
    2. LoL! Evos are the cause of it. That you can't grasp tat proves how unaware you are

      Delete
    3. LOL! Yeah, it's always someone else's fault Joke Gallien shouts vile obscenities like a drunken sailor and doesn't understand a thing about the science while crapping in every thread.

      Joke and personal responsibility have an adversarial relationship.

      Delete
    4. LoL! I only respond when attacked, moron coward

      Delete
    5. Thanks for proving my point Joke. It's always someone else's fault. Fat Joke Gallien is always the poor victim. People hold a gun to his head and force him to type his vile obscenities and make his physical threats.

      Delete
    6. GR, I probably agree with you on many things. But is it really necessary to make comments about a person's appearance and weight? Is it even relevant to the discussion? I think you are better than this.

      Delete
    7. Timmy, you don't have a point. Stop blaming me for abusive posts when they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the likes of you.

      And I take full responsibility for my posts. That has nothing to do with the fact that I don't attack unless I am being attacked. But the fact that you, of all people, try to pin it all on me proves that you are a little imp momma's boy.

      All you can do is equivocate, bluff, lie and attack. You will never step up and tell us how to test the claims of evolutionism. You will just attack and bluff.

      Delete
    8. Also I don't make physical threats. Calling out cowards who can only attack, lie, bluff and equivocate is not considered making threats.

      Delete
    9. CaroleTim

      GR, I probably agree with you on many things. But is it really necessary to make comments about a person's appearance and weight? Is it even relevant to the discussion? I think you are better than this.


      Yeah, you're probably right but the temptation to tweak his nose is sometimes too strong. :) "Chubs" is Joe's nickname on many C/E boards. That's because Joe the compulsive liar used to brag about what a world class athlete he was. Then one day someone found a picture of him on a YEC website. Turned out Joe is almost spherical with more chins than the Hong Kong phone directory. :D

      Still, I'll try to keep the fun-poking to a minimum. It's not like Joke has the ability to engage in serious scientific discussions however.

      Delete
    10. LoL!@ Timmy the projectionist! Timmy is lying as I never bragged about being a world class athlete. And only a blind moron would think that picture depicts someone who is spherical. Thanks for proving that you are delusional and a pathological liar.

      As for science you have already proven to be totally ignorant of it.

      Delete
    11. I said almost spherical Chubs. You still had that big lump of fat with ears sticking out the top which spoiled the overall effect.

      Delete
    12. The picture doesn't depict an almost spherical anything. You are just a delusional and desperate loser.

      Delete
    13. GR: "You still had that big lump of fat with ears sticking out the top which spoiled the overall effect."

      You just can't help yourself can you? Ever thought that people are overweight because of medical conditions or psychological conditions? Your name calling is really unfortunate and unhelpful to people who struggle mightily with their weight and body image.

      Delete
    14. It's OK and reflects his desperation. If you ever saw the picture he is talking about you would understand that

      Delete
    15. CaroleTim

      You just can't help yourself can you? Ever thought that people are overweight because of medical conditions or psychological conditions?


      How about it Joke? Is your morbid obesity caused by medical conditions or psychological conditions?

      Your name calling is really unfortunate and unhelpful to people who struggle mightily with their weight and body image.

      Most overweight people I know don't go around claiming to be Olympic caliber athletes. I'm tweaking one specific braggart, not anyone else.

      Delete
    16. Yo, Timothy,

      How about it Timmy? Is your closet homosexuality caused by medical conditions or psychological conditions?

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha

      Delete
    17. Evotard Timmy:

      Most overweight people I know don't go around claiming to be Olympic caliber athletes. I'm tweaking one specific braggart, not anyone else.

      Most closet homosexuals I know don't go around claiming to be barnyard studs. I'm tweaking one specific braggart, not anyone else.

      BTW, I know some Christians make you nervous when they quote Bible verses about homosexualisty but how's your raging war on fundamentalist Christians working for you? Do you divulge your homosexuality to them or are you a gutless maggot?

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha

      Delete
    18. Had to know that would happen. ;/

      Delete
    19. Mapou: "BTW, I know some Christians make you nervous when they quote Bible verses about homosexualisty"

      I don't know about GR, but the only Christians who make me nervous are the priests hanging out with the alter boys. God works in mysterious ways.

      Delete
    20. Is your morbid obesity caused by medical conditions or psychological conditions?

      I am not obese. You are obviously a desperate loser

      Most overweight people I know don't go around claiming to be Olympic caliber athletes.

      I never made that claim. So obviously you are a desperate loser

      Delete
    21. Timmy:
      I'm tweaking one specific braggart, not anyone else.

      LoL! As if a little cowardly loser like you can tweak anyone.

      Delete
    22. How about it Timmy, is your retardation and desperation caused by medical conditions, psychological conditions or both?

      Delete
  8. Darwinists are clearly scared and desperate. The infighting is bringing me great joy. Here's another link:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/royal-society-templeton-now-rebranding-darwin-rethink/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just read an excellent post over at Uncommon Descent. It features the wisdom and logic of William J. Murray. Below is my favorite paragraph:

    WJM@8: “No. If there is no god and no objective source of morality, then everything you say about morality is as irrelevant to others as someone expressing what they feel about the taste of peaches or their preferred color. You’re just another agglomeration of physics and chemistry making the noises such processes cause. I might as well consider what a babbling brook has to say on the matter of morality and how it came to be.”

    ReplyDelete
  10. Might be off topic, but here is an interesting piece that goes along with the theme of cornelius blog mission statement

    PhysOrg: April 28, 2016 Influence of religion and predestination on evolution and scientific thinking

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here's another recent link that makes me smile. Darwinist explanations have become comical...and I am thoroughly enjoying the entertainment. The Darwinist theme song should be Slip Sliding Away by Paul Simon. Must be tough watching their secular religion "slip sliding away" into disrepute and ridicule.

    ReplyDelete
  12. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/05/a_limit_to_evol102819.html

    ReplyDelete